Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tifosi too!

Mass Dampers Is Illegal

Recommended Posts

EDIT: This post of mine was not needed and did nothing to further the debate.

oops, sorry was late to respond, had late meetings and couldn't get online much.

But I did read your earlier post. I wasn;t aware that article 3.15 was used to ban the renault stuff, which is very odd because the mass damper seems to violate article 10 more than they do 3.15. I am not sure how FIA interprets its rules, but I don't claim to know enough about them to interpret better. Anyway it seems moot at this point....

Puma, no need to apologize, forums aren't meant to be take seriously, I think for most of us (at least myself) the forums are the only option to talk about F1 and we all love talking about F1. None of my current friends have any clue about what F1 is. So for me the forum is the only way out to bring out my fascination for the sport and connect to the other fans. Its okay to tease, annoy or even taunt others here as long as we don;t forget that we are only here for the love of F1 and not for the hatred of any culture, religion, race, creed....of course we can abuse each other in teh cafe without any consideration to the above.... :thbup:

just dont assume that because you have a lot of knowledge about F1, it makes others stupid....

peace my friend! : B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oops, sorry was late to respond, had late meetings and couldn't get online much.

But I did read your earlier post. I wasn;t aware that article 3.15 was used to ban the renault stuff, which is very odd because the mass damper seems to violate article 10 more than they do 3.15. I am not sure how FIA interprets its rules, but I don't claim to know enough about them to interpret better. Anyway it seems moot at this point....

Puma, no need to apologize, forums aren't meant to be take seriously, I think for most of us (at least myself) the forums are the only option to talk about F1 and we all love talking about F1. None of my current friends have any clue about what F1 is. So for me the forum is the only way out to bring out my fascination for the sport and connect to the other fans. Its okay to tease, annoy or even taunt others here as long as we don;t forget that we are only here for the love of F1 and not for the hatred of any culture, religion, race, creed....of course we can abuse each other in teh cafe without any consideration to the above.... :thbup:

just dont assume that because you have a lot of knowledge about F1, it makes others stupid....

peace my friend! : B)

You, sir, are a cut above :thbup: I don't have anyone really to talk about F1 with, so I'm in the same boat as you there. I normally don't take these things too seriously, but I suppose I had such respect for Cav's opinion that hearing him say 'Why would you ask him?" or somesuch caused me to get a bit mean-spirited.

Back to the topic, I suppose the dampers don't really fit into any category. They are a device that affects both the suspension and the front-end aero, so I suppose they can be made illegal on both grounds. Too bad because I would have liked to see them develop, as well as the flexi-wings.

Ah well...I may go through this thread and delete my negative comments. People who are reading the main totalf1.com page see these forum titles and I really don't want to overly offend any new people...so if anyone sees that I've edited my comments out, you know the reason.

peace to you, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no sir, no thank you, no group hugs for me, it all is well and merry until someone drops the soap.....*grabs chastity belt*

:eusa_think:

:yikes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? The upper and lower front wishbones are suspension parts that are shaped like airfoils to reduce drag.

Just about, if anyone tried some funny business there, the FIA would jump at it. They're not cylindrical,, but that is about as far as the FIA would let them go Ithink.

They move. They are, under the article quoted, MOVABLE AERO, and yet the FIA allows them. And as for affecting the aero MORE, who the hell cares to what degree it affects the aero? If it's movable, then it should be banned.

We're not arguing absolutes here, we're arguing whether the FIA's arugment is completely untenable. You could say the same about the tyres, they have aero impact hugely dictated by their shape and the shape and impact is different for the two companies.

EDIT.

Then ban it's use all over the car and not on the nose, where IT CLEARLY ISN'T AN AERO BIT.

First of all, you base all your analysis exlusively on the pictures given in magazines, websites, which is merely an artists impression of what the system could be like, they didn't exactly get a peak inside the Renault. I remember reading somewhere that they also had a damper near the gearbox now, where are the pictures of that? We will never know what exactly what Renault were using by now, it is no great stretch of the imagination to assume that what they were using 3 races ago was different from what they started about an year ago. You can use the pictures as a guide, but to use them as absolute representation of what was banned is ridiculous, we don't even have pictures or any information at all about what Honda were planning for example.

Then why ban them? Common sense tells us that you ban what devices that go against the rules and keep those that conform. The mass dampers as used by Renault, conform to the rules. Ban any derivitive technology if you wish, but not a legal system.

The system as used by Renault is well documented and founded on basic engineering principles.

No, the system as shown in pictures in magazines and websites is well documented, we know that is the principle the Renault system is based on, we have no idea how far Renault have gone with the idea.

Renault's front-end 'mass' dampers are explained in Ctrl's posted image:

0,,333774,00.jpg

Again what a journalist thinks they are.

What it's describing is considered by all engineers as 'suspension'.

Going by stopkidding's post, I would say that they would be considered bodywork, as he said here:

10.3.3 Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork. {mass dampers are not structural elements of the suspension as they do NOT carry vertical loads, they merely transfer inertia. Since they are considered to be a part of the bodywork, they are considered to be MOVABLE ****ING AERO}
Suspension is anything that compensates for the vertical movement of a car.

Again the FIA definition of what constitutes the suspension overrides everything else, obviously.

Now to the broader issues at hand. The FIA are concerned about this technology expanding. I state that it should not expand and I agree that the FIA should ban the use of any mass damper not directly connected to the suspension, as the front-end Renault mass dampers were.

That would be hard to police wouldn't it, like maybe allowing flexible bodywork that does not affect aero?

Narain, do you honestly believe that my technical understanding of the Renault front-end mass damper is incorrect?

It's insufficient to make an authoritative statement, only the Renault team and the FIA really know.

Stopkidding, I just want to point out that you are quoting suspension regulations (10) but the FIA banned the devices under aerodynamic regulations (article 3.15). Aside from that, good post.

see above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cav, I actually feel dizzy from reading your above past... Did you reply to every single persons post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Puma, and just the ones worth replying to :P

(Oh and I am aware of the spelling mistakes, amazing how dyslexia hits you, I wrote peak instead of peek, quite unintentionally :wacko: )

eidting that post is too big a task however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just about, if anyone tried some funny business there, the FIA would jump at it. They're not cylindrical,, but that is about as far as the FIA would let them go Ithink.

I do recall that this has already been addressed, since Tyrrell were banned from using their wishbones as aerodynamic devices. 1994? can't recall with any great accuracy and I'm too idle to look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do recall that this has already been addressed, since Tyrrell were banned from using their wishbones as aerodynamic devices. 1994? can't recall with any great accuracy and I'm too idle to look it up.

Yeah, it was '94. I remember there being a big hoo haa with Benneton's too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Ken and Dr. Harvey and the Tyrrell boys were quite the innovators. On a tiny budget. Raised noses and anhedral front wings anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cav, thanks for your thoughts, I enjoyed reading them. I cannot know for certain what Renault is using and I was making an educated guess, like everybody else.

The front suspension parts (notably the wishbones), from what I understand, are shaped like 'flat' airfoils. This doesn't generate downforce as a curved airfoild would, but they eliminate drag. Elimination of drag is something that affects the aero, so that's what I was talking about in my analogy. Sorry if it was confusing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The front suspension parts (notably the wishbones), from what I understand, are shaped like 'flat' airfoils. This doesn't generate downforce as a curved airfoild would, but they eliminate drag. Elimination of drag is something that affects the aero, so that's what I was talking about in my analogy. Sorry if it was confusing...

Of course they affect aero, but as I said that affect is minimal, and as Russ pointed out, any attempts to go further with that will invite the stick from Max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they affect aero, but as I said that affect is minimal, and as Russ pointed out, any attempts to go further with that will invite the stick from Max.

You know, I'm beginning to think you have the right of this type of debate. Formula 1 has always been about cutting-edge technology and innovation, but it seems that we are so technical now that it's pushed the drivers out of the equation a bit.

Perhaps we need a more 'spec' series. We would avoid this type of innovation/banning debate and it would solve the eternal debate about whether driver X was fast or just his car was fast. I'm seriously re-thinking my whole stance on this..... :eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm how about one or two exhibition races every season in spec, possibly slightly modified GP2 cars, it could be interesting. Finding the right balance between technical enterprise and driver skill has become a very tricky thing to manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm how about one or two exhibition races every season in spec, possibly slightly modified GP2 cars, it could be interesting. Finding the right balance between technical enterprise and driver skill has become a very tricky thing to manage.

What about splitting the season into two parts:

First part would be a race by the teams to produce the best car, much like current F1. The team that wins that half of the season would then submit that car's design to the FIA and for the second part of the season, all the teams would run that winning car--a spec series for the second half of the season. The benefit of winning the first part of the season is that you would be familair with the car. It would give them a slight edge.

So, should I stop smoking crack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about splitting the season into two parts:

First part would be a race by the teams to produce the best car, much like current F1. The team that wins that half of the season would then submit that car's design to the FIA and for the second part of the season, all the teams would run that winning car--a spec series for the second half of the season. The benefit of winning the first part of the season is that you would be familair with the car. It would give them a slight edge.

So, should I stop smoking crack?

yes i think so. Another interesting, although completely unreal idea would be to have a one race in the year where the drivers are randomly assigned to different cars. This race would not be for points but just to shuffle things make it a fun weekend.. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about splitting the season into two parts:

First part would be a race by the teams to produce the best car, much like current F1. The team that wins that half of the season would then submit that car's design to the FIA and for the second part of the season, all the teams would run that winning car--a spec series for the second half of the season. The benefit of winning the first part of the season is that you would be familair with the car. It would give them a slight edge.

So, should I stop smoking crack?

:D You and stopkidding must like Mosley's idea of making the drivers drive for all the different teams throughout the season then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D You and stopkidding must like Mosley's idea of making the drivers drive for all the different teams throughout the season then

I thought that was a very interesting idea from Maxie but about as unworkable as my idea :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what was max's idea? i am not aware of it?

Cav touched on it earlier, but for the record Max thought that it would be a good idea if all the drivers raced for different teams at each race throughout the season.

Bloody crazy idea like all of max's, if you ask me.

P.S. Mike are you OK mate??? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say rotating driver's is worth a try....maybe just for a sprint race or something on saturday/sunday mourning couldnt be for championship points though, maybe they could be in a seperate championship...

Something i've thought of is all sponsorship is handled by one organization (FIA makes sense but then again not at first sight would be like them being in control of it) and is distrubted to all the team's giving them all the same money. How efficiently they use that money will be very interesting and make the WCC all the more meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about splitting the season into two parts:

First part would be a race by the teams to produce the best car, much like current F1. The team that wins that half of the season would then submit that car's design to the FIA and for the second part of the season, all the teams would run that winning car--a spec series for the second half of the season. The benefit of winning the first part of the season is that you would be familair with the car. It would give them a slight edge.

So, should I stop smoking crack?

:eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adrien (Yoda) and I were talking the other night and this was the converstation over ICQ:

autumnpuma: I think that a spec-series equates to technological stagnation but I think that the tech has gone so far in f1 that there isnt true racing anymore. f1 needs to be more of a spec-series; I'm convinced of that now. In a spec-series you wouldnt have the bullsh!t of arbitrary rules....one device is good, one device is banned. in a spec-series, you know that Hamilton is teh bomb and Carroll is teh suxxor. In F1 today Alonso may be better than M$, but who would know it convincingly? The quality of the car these days is the deciding factor, not the balls of the driver.

Adrien(ICQ): I love the tech. But when the tech goes so far that the driver is removed from the equation, and *more importantly,* the governing body is seen as capricious and arbitrary, then it becomes necessary to rein in *all* development, and start over. I think that the experience of CART/ChampCar proves that. I also think that manufacturer involvement needs to be toned down. It's what destroyed CART, it has caused even more irreparable damage to the EARL (although it was fcukered to begin with), and it's destroying F1.

That's the meat of it. Over the years I've seen turbos come and go and fantastic aerodynamic innovations arrive. I've seen engines pull over 19,000 revs and exotic materials being developed. All through those years we were treated to some great racing. Now I think we are near the pinnacle of what an open-wheeled car can achieve. Now I think we need to reign ourselved in a bit because only a fool will compare the on-track racing these days to the majesty of former years and call it 'the same'.

It may seemt that I've turned my viewpoint around, and you're right, I have a bit. I have sat back and asked myself why do I turn the TV on each fortnight? What do I really want to see? Do I want to see the pinnacle of automotive tech on parade (literally), or do I want to see the best drivers taking a car at it's limit around a challenging circuit?

Jim Clark didn't look fantastic because he had the best car on the planet; Jimmy looked fantastic because he drove a metal coffin better than anyone else. I want the drivers back in the equation and if a spec-series will get us there, then that's what I'll support. The trick is still advancing the technology......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...